Why do unscientific people think they are qualified to attack science? (genesis, myths)

[JohnJLethal]

Originally Posted by leangk

unscientific people? criticizing theories? umm the thing you should be mroe worried about is unscientific people supporting theories or unqualified scientists. such as a zoologists talking about physics.

the msot apparent example is the great globabl warming lie of course.

And why is Global Warming/Climate Change a lie? You've determined this how? You've figured it all out, and the Nobel Prize winning scientists were all wrong?

Shall I alert the Press that you've uncovered a mass conspiracy to pull the wool over everyone's eyes and that you will be taking over as the leading expert in Climatology?

[Terryj]

Originally Posted by JohnJLethal

And why is Global Warming/Climate Change a lie? You've determined this how? You've figured it all out, and the Nobel Prize winning scientists were all wrong?

Shall I alert the Press that you've uncovered a mass conspiracy to pull the wool over everyone's eyes and that you will be taking over as the leading expert in Climatology?

I don't think that global warming is an out right lie, however I do question that global warming is due to only human involvement. Noted Nobel prize winner Al Gore ( you know the guy that invented the internet) book is full of misleading information. Global climate change happens, it's been happening on this planet ever since Earth has had an atmosphere, and it will continue to happen. Ice core samples show dramatic climate change taking place within a 10 year period, long before human were even here, dating back 10 of thousands of years. But what do they know, according to the bible the earth wasn't even here then, so it becomes a mute point. LOL

[JohnJLethal]

Originally Posted by Terryj

I don't think that global warming is an out right lie, however I do question that global warming is due to only human involvement. Noted Nobel prize winner Al Gore ( you know the guy that invented the internet) book is full of misleading information. Global climate change happens, it's been happening on this planet ever since Earth has had an atmosphere, and it will continue to happen. Ice core samples show dramatic climate change taking place within a 10 year period, long before human were even here, dating back 10 of thousands of years. But what do they know, according to the bible the earth wasn't even here then, so it becomes a mute point. LOL

This is the heart of the matter. The ice core data is +600k years old. If you as a Fundamentalist Christian only believe the Earth is +-10k years old, you cannot accept Climate Change by virtue of invalidating a Young Earth belief system. Your pastors know this, and feed this down to the masses.

Senator James Inhofe helmed the Senate Chair on environmental policies for a time, and is a Fundamentalist Christian. He was quoted as saying Global Warming was “the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people.” Google it, you will see.

There is clearly a conflict of interest between Fundamentalist Christians and accepting Climate Change. If you cannot accept the data for Climate Change without invalidating your belief system, which is going to win out?

PS: Al Gore is not the only proponent of Climate Change as a result of man-made conditions. Nearly all of the world's leading scientists have accepted this as a reality, and many have been recognized for their Scientific achievements.

[ElleBebe]

Originally Posted by 17271

The universe has nothing at all to do with evolution. Evolution is an explanation why life on earth is diverse, nothing more.

Yeah, I realized a little while later I was combining the Big Bang theory with evolution without clarifying; however, I believe they are both tools used by the Creator to get us to where we are now.

[Nikk]

Originally Posted by sanspeur

When you state that evolution is not science and the bible is inerrant, and you actually believe this to be true then I would say you have been mislead, or are not being honest with yourself.

I have been mislead by the truth then, according to you!

[Nikk]

Originally Posted by arod0331

I have a theory that a lot of them have had this religion business pounded into their heads from a very young age. Whether it's that they don't care to question their religion to find real answers, or they do a compartmentalization and create their "god box" in their brains which logic and reason won't seep thru, who knows?

You've listened to Dawkin's retoric to much. He was the one that said that Creationist who do science must compartmentalize.

I think it is the evolutionists who must compartmentalize. They must assume uniformity in nature with no reason, where the Creation who starts with God has the reason for the uniformity of nature that we observe.

[rifleman]

Originally Posted by txguy2009

It gets really old and is actually quite alarming to hear people with no formal education in hard science naively criticize scientific theories. The worst lines are "but evolution requires faith too! It's just all one big leap of faith everything is equal."

Why don't anti-evolutionists understand this?

(They do. Fully.)

What's funny is that Christians do not raise the same naive attacks on sciences which don't directly threaten their beliefs, like physics or chemistry (in fact all the christians on here rely on physics to communicate over the internet, and some likely use chemistry via pharmaceutical drugs to stay alive).

(That's because they need those scientific discoveries and resulting products to live their easy lives.)

Yet when the same rigorous methods produce an outcome that contradicts their belief that all life was created by God they attack it. Very hypocritical.

(See my points below)

A final point of contention is the fact that Christians claim that evolution has never been directly observed. This is utterly false.

(I've offered to demo evolution in a petri dish, overnight, but Noooooo! They call that "adaptation". Which, of course, when it leads to a new genotype, is exactly "evolution". Think of that word's definition in a secular format: the "evolution" of our State and Federal laws. The "evolution" of a car's engineering. Etc etc.

They also try to roll the origins of life into evolution, which, no matter how often we denounce that, they still use. It's called a"straw argument", intended to distract or deflect. They are VERY good at those techniques. Or, when truly cornered, they drop a "blah blah" biblical quote, pretty much invoking the "God Works in Mysterious Ways" pseudo-theory.

I admire your question, but scientists like myself have been positing this oddity of intellect for too long now. I actually have just challenged a poster on these threads, NIKK, to an adjudicated debate here on line, with 5 judges, as he consistently insults scientists as pre-determining their results, cooking their data, or ignoring the edvidence in front of them. And calling me stupid. I've had enough. Of course, no response so far.

He also directly admitted that they cannot ever accept our "evidence" as it would, naturally, shatter their belief system. (He says, alternately, that neither can we scientists accept their data and observation. Well, we're all waiting for something approaching peer-reviewed, reproduceable, logical studies, not ranting).

They NEVER should have stated that the Earth is (exactly!) 6034 years old. Whaaaayyy to easy to disprove, as you know. They should NEVER have desperately clung to a literal interpretation of Noah trying to get two of everything onto the too-small Ark, not to mention the hunger-lust in the eyes of the two T-Rexs who promised to behave once on board. (NIKK says they were vegetarians). And the other thousands of known raptorial, carnivorous dinosaur types? Perhaps they were, Moderator cut: deleted just put there by a loving, caring God to confuse us scientists and damn us to hell.

In the face of such illogic, we'll never get anywhere. And that's the point. I have since suggested that we shouldn't be arguing about the conclusions, but rather how we arrived at them. A good old debate about basic logic, basic debating, basic "conceding" if one argument is better than the other. But nope. They love baiting us into arguments, taunting us into rage, then using our eventual volatile come-backs against us. I'm sure they laugh all the while. Like schoolyard bullies.

What they don't see, apparently, is how Moderator cut: deleted illogical it makes them appear. Or they don't care. Moderator cut: edit - Disrespectful to other members

Religion has a very valid place in society. I believe that. But not as a foil for all science, or even specific science. They accuse us of built-in biases for our own self-aggrandizement, promotion or scientific ego, not realizing that there's built-in checks and balances in our methods, conclusions and hypotheses. There's none in their "system", but since they have not chosen to educate themselves on The Scientific Method, and thereby recant their criticisms, they speak from a position of hopeless, vast, embarrassing ignorance. And they apparently love that status! Moderator cut: edited due to respect for other members

Well, what can you, I or anyone logically do? Probably just step away. Eventually, ignorance kills itself off. Though I will say that Christianity has had a pretty long run at it. Precisely because sheeple need a shepherd and a book of mythology to feel safe. And to comfort them against the terrorizing concept of their eventual demise sans a heavenly afterlife .

There. did I pretty much hit that nail right?

Again, thanks for your thoughtful post, grasshopper!

[arod0331]

Originally Posted by Nikk

You've listened to Dawkin's retoric to much. He was the one that said that Creationist who do science must compartmentalize.

I think it is the evolutionists who must compartmentalize. They must assume uniformity in nature with no reason, where the Creation who starts with God has the reason for the uniformity of nature that we observe.

Oh that's funny

Despite the fact that I've never read anything by Darwin, I somehow follow his rhetoric?
Do you even know what compartmentalization is? It's what creationists do....oh the sky is like so awesome, so god did it....oh floods aren't nice, that's not god it's just acts of nature.

[rifleman]

Originally Posted by Terryj

I don't think that global warming is an out right lie, however I do question that global warming is due to only human involvement.

As this relates to non-scientific conclusions versus those of established science, i'd offer the following:

There are, essentially, three possible options as to global warming:

1. it's ALL just cyclical. Gonna happen anyhow. We have no influence. Possible.

2. it's ALL human-induced (see: Al Gore & Infinite Wisdom). Alarmist. Unlikely.

3. it's happening, but was perhaps partially triggered into a sort of cascade effect by human macro-activities (and stupid greed) on the planet. Most likely, and with lots of evidence.

To attribute God's hand in it as "punishment"? Yikes! Science will sort it out as best those honest scientists can. I hope. Better than metaphysical mumbo-jumbo solutions or over-reactions.

Take your local scientist to lunch!

[Mozart271]

Still waiting, Nikk...Mendel, Darwin...one negates the other...come on, you said it, now 'splain it. This is my 4th time asking.